A few years ago, Reuters News reported that a nationwide poll conducted of the Russian people found that former dictator Josef Stalin was voted the third most popular historical figure. Over one-third of the Russian population participated in the poll.

Can you imagine? Stalin just might be the greatest mass-murderer in human history. Estimates of the body count during Stalin’s reign of terror range anywhere from 20-60 million, and that doesn’t include the millions of people who were starved, imprisoned, and tortured but who didn’t die. Only China’s Mao Tse-tung rivals Stalin’s butchery. Then, again, many Chinese people still love Mao Tse-tung, too.

How is it that people can laud and honor tyrants and butchers? How can people so easily submit to slavery and despotism?

No tyrant rises to power calling himself a tyrant. Tyranny is never sold as tyranny. Every tyrannical regime of history considered itself to be patriotic and compassionate; and the people who supported and submitted to such regimes considered themselves to be patriotic and compassionate, as well. The police state is never called that by those who promote it; they call it “law and order,” “keeping the peace,” “protecting the homeland,” etc.

In March of 1836, a young man of twenty-three years of age took his sword out of its scabbard and drew a line in the sand in front of an old mission outside of San Antonio, Texas, and called on the men defending that mission who were willing to stay on the ramparts and face an opposing army more than ten times their number to signify their commitment by stepping across the line. Of course, the young man was William Barrett Travis and the old mission was the Alamo. He could not have known it then, but Travis’ line in the sand would forever become the benchmark by which all future acts of commitment would be measured. In a mystical way, but, then again, in very real way, Travis’ line in the sand is being drawn again. Oh, it may not be a line in dirt drawn by the point of a sword; it is a line in the hearts of men being drawn by the Spirit of God.

My last three columns generated more responses than any three columns I have ever written, and I have been writing this column for some fifteen years. At first, the responses were mostly negative and often vitriolic. But this past week, responses have been over 90% positive and very enthusiastic. I am confident that the manner in which these columns have brought out intense emotion and determination on both sides is a microcosm of what is happening nationally. A line in the sand for freedom is being drawn once again.

This line in the sand for freedom is separating people in a major way. And this is not necessarily a bad thing. In the same way that God commanded Abram to separate from his home and kin, so, too, the Spirit of God is separating people many times from their friends, their neighbors, their kinfolk, and, yes, their church families. I seem to recall that during the period of the early church, the conflict of principle forever separated the apostles Paul and Silas. And during America’s War for Independence, the conflict of principle separated Benjamin Franklin and his son William–as it did tens of thousands of others.

I realize it is hard for some people to understand (especially those holding political office), but in the United States, “We the People” are the sovereigns. America has no king. In America, “We the People” are Caesar. Someone rightly said, “In America, the people rule; they have the power of the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Amen. And in this land of liberty, nothing is more important than the jury box. The right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers is a benchmark principle of a free land.

Juries have immeasurable power. Not only do they have power over the fate of the accused, they have power over the accusers. No one has more authority than a jury–not even the judge. And without hyperbole I can say that a constitutionally literate, fully informed jury is pretty much all that stands between the ballot box and the cartridge box.

In a letter to Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” And two years before the first musket shot was fired that started America’s War for Independence, a Boston lawyer by the name of John Adams said, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

Pat Buchanan recently wrote an intriguing column titled, “Is Red State America Seceding?” His column clearly reveals that an independence/secession movement is spreading globally. Pat rightly observes that in just the last few years some 25 nations have broken free of mother countries and formed their own independent states. And, no, most of these separations did NOT require violent revolution. In addition, talk of secession is currently going on in at least six other regions of the world. And, as Buchanan correctly observes, the spirit of secession is very much alive and well in the United States.

Buchanan writes, “The five counties of western Maryland–Garrett, Allegany, Washington, Frederick and Carroll, which have more in common with West Virginia and wish to be rid of Baltimore and free of Annapolis, are talking secession.”

But people in Maryland are not the only ones talking secession. Buchanan continues to write, “Ten northern counties of Colorado are this November holding non-binding referenda to prepare a future secession from Denver and the creation of America’s 51st state.”

[Editors note: This article was first published in September of 2009. I will leave it to the reader to decide if the United States are suffering for the misdeeds of our leader with respect to the Middle East and our own citizens.]

Before the entire world, at the marginally legitimate United Nations, Barack Hussein Obama officially threw the nation of Israel under the bus when he told the assembled mob of assorted dictators and thugs, with a few of America’s friends thrown in, that our country “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Of course the comment was cheered by the major part of the world that despises the Jewish state… but while he may speak for the government, he does not speak for all of the American people.

What Mr. Obama does not understand about Israel is that their safety is not dependent on US good will or power… and neither is the success of her enemies. Thousands of years ago the restoration of Israel to their homeland was forecast by a power greater than Barack Obama. It was this power that brought the Jewish people home and this power will preserve it there without the help of our aircraft and intelligence.

By taking upon himself to decide the propriety of settlements in another country the President may have put our own country at greater risk than we have ever been in the past. As far back as the book of Genesis the Lord told Abram, later to be called Abraham and become the father of the Jewish nation, that, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” Everyone has the choice of whether or not to accept this… it is apparent that this president does not.

On page 261 of The Audacity of Hope, Barack Hussein Obama wrote, “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Now he appears to be taking one more step to protect the religion of his youth despite the fact that there is absolutely no reason to risk American and take Syrian lives in this troubled area of the world.

We are told that Obama is outraged over the supposed use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons on civilians as he struggles to stay in control of his country. There are two problems with the feeble tantrum coming from the White House.

The first is that there are mixed reports coming out of Syria. Many of them say that chemical weapons were used, but that it was the rebels who gassed the people… many of them children. While succumbing to a poisonous gas attack is far from pleasant, dying from the more conventional methods is no picnic either. The dictator has been killing people for years, and they are just as dead as as those who have been gassed.

The relationship between the throne and the pulpit has always been a tenuous one at best. Since the days of Melchisedec, God intended that the office of priest and king be separate. Old Testament kings learned the hard way not to intrude into the priest’s office. God clearly intended that His prophets be free and independent men who possessed as much courage as they did faith. Reading the scriptural record of the Old Testament reveals that the prophecies and warnings of the prophets were aimed as much at the throne as at the village. And, more often than not, these prophecies were not well received (putting it mildly) by ancient Israel’s equivalent to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

King Amaziah commanded the prophet Amos to “prophesy not.” King Jeroboam I attempted to seize, with the intent to kill, the prophet. Fortunately, God miraculously protected His man. King Ahab looked everywhere for Elijah with the intent to kill him. Queen Jezebel tried to kill Elijah, as well. Ahab’s last act was to imprison the prophet Micaiah. Ahab’s son, King Ahaziah, tried to arrest Elijah three times and lost over 100 men in the process. Ahab’s second son, King Jehoram, tried to kill the prophet Elisha. King Joash killed Zechariah. King Amaziah beat God’s prophet into silence. King Jehoiakim killed Uriah. The prophet Jeremiah spent more time in prison than he did out. Israel’s kings falsely accused him, hated him, mocked him, persecuted him, and repeatedly imprisoned him. They even attempted to murder him, and without divine protection, would no doubt have succeeded. The prophets Amos, Micah, and Isaiah all record Israel’s kings as telling them to “prophesy not,” or in modern parlance, to “shut up.”

So egregious were the persecutions against God’s prophets by Israel’s kings that Jesus stood outside the capital city of Jerusalem and declared, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee.” (Matthew 23:37 KJV)

There have been cries for US involvement to do something as Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad crossed some sort of imaginary “red line” by using chemical weapons on his own people. Now, it is generally understood that al-Assad is a bad dude. So for the low information citizens, it may be a logical assumption that the US needs to do something about it. The problem is that there is much that is not understood by the bleeding hearts and the “neocons”.

The first problem is that the proposed solution is to put more American soldiers in harms way to protect the lives of these rebel “freedom fighters”. Given our financial situation, the fact that our military finds itself stretched thin in far too many country’s and conflicts around the world, and the far too frequent use of “reserves”. This is endangering the effectiveness of this finest force in the world.

Those promoting involvement do not take into account the far greater cost in military personnel. Are we really ready to sacrifice more of of fine young men and women to put this mad man into exile or in the ground? Adding to this cost are the number of children growing up without a parent or a young wives without their husbands? One has to wonder where the anti-war protesters from W’s presidency or from the 60s have gone to. They seem to have evaporated since the Democrats have seized control of the White House.

[Editors note: With recent attacks on the Second Amendment and the First Amendment ignored in many quarters, it is a good time to review the Bill of Rights... every one of them... so we know what is being taken from us. These rights we have as Americans are not granted by these hallowed words... they are merely being recognized.]

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

What do the names Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette, Henrietta, Copper, Sea Lion and Sea Otter Rock have in common? They are the names of islands in the Arctic Ocean and the Bering Sea that Barack Hussein Obama is giving to the Russians by simply agreeing to redrawing the boundary between Siberia and Alaska. Is this just passing several ice covered rocks into Putin’s hands? Or do they really have some value?

One of them is the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined? There are also tens of thousands of square miles oil rich sea beds around this islands. He is not only preventing our country from working towards an energy policy that frees us from dependence on foreign sources – he is giving away a large portion of the resources we could use in pursuing this goal. And he is giving them to a country ruled by a ruthless enemy of our land.

Several times the Alaska state house voted against such a give away. They have spoken up and implored the national government to stop the plan that was developed behind closed doors… with not input from the state of Alaska. The Obama administration simply ignored the wishes of the Alaskan government and is giving away part of it to the Russians.

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to see Dinesh D’Souza’s investigation into the reasons Barack Obama is running the country the way he does. The film, 2016, traces the influences that have shaped the thinking of the 44th US President. They are not obvious and they are not common to the American psyche. The world view of the man in the oval office is, literally, foreign to the citizens of this country.

His actions have led people to call him a Muslim and a socialist. But, according to D’Souza, the forces that drive Obama are far more complex than that. He has had a range of mentors throughout his life that covered the gamut of communist and anti-colonialist thinking. During his time in academia, his books tell us, he spent his time seeking out the socialist students and radical professors. If we are known by the company we keep, there should be no surprise at the direction this man has taken the country.

One of the last (and very best) true investigative journalists is William Norman Grigg. I have admired his work for years. A report he recently wrote was covered by one of the very best (if not THE BEST) newspapers in the country, The Eau Claire (Wisconsin) Journal. Grigg writes, “When New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law on June 18, the Granite State became the first in the nation to enact a measure explicitly recognizing and protecting the indispensable right of jury nullification.

“New Hampshire’s jury nullification law reads, in relevant part: ‘In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.’

“There is nothing novel about the principle and practice of jury nullification, which dictates that citizen juries have the right and authority to rule both on the facts of a case, and the validity of a given law. This is widely recognized in judicial precedents in both American history and in Anglo-Saxon common law dating back to the Magna Carta (or earlier). At the time of the American founding it was well and widely understood that the power of citizen juries–both grand and petit–was plenary, and that their chief function was to force the government to prove its case against a defendant–and the validity of the law in question.”

An impotent general and Defense Secretary Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that consent of congress is no longer relevant in the deployment of US soldiers in foreign lands. The two showed a greater concern for the opinion of the international community than the permission of the legislative body designated by the Constitution to handle such matters.

As you watch the video, particularly Panetta’s testimony and Senator Sessions incredulous response, it is frightening to think that he and his fellow internationalist boss are the ones sending our fighting men and women into harms way based on the whims of an international community that does not really have the best interests of our country at heart.

April 19, 1775, should be regarded as important a date to Americans as July 4, 1776. It’s a shame that we don’t celebrate it as enthusiastically as we do Independence Day. It’s even more shameful that many Americans don’t even remember what happened on this day back in 1775. For the record, historians call this day, “Patriot’s Day.” More specifically, it was the day that the shot was fired that was heard ’round the world. It was the day America’s War for Independence began.

Being warned of approaching British troops by Dr. Joseph Warren, Pastor Jonas Clark and his male congregants of the Church of Lexington (numbering 60-70) were the ones that stood with their muskets in front of the Crown’s troops (numbering over 800), who were on orders to seize a cache of arms which were stored at Concord and to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock (who were known to be in the area, and who had actually taken refuge in Pastor Clark’s home).

According to eyewitnesses, the king’s troops opened fire on the militiamen almost without warning, immediately killing eight of Pastor Clark’s parishioners. In self defense, the Minutemen returned fire. These were the first shots of the Revolutionary War. This took place on Lexington Green, which was located directly beside the church-house where those men worshipped each Sunday. Adams and Hancock were not taken. They owed their lives to Pastor Clark and his brave Minutemen–albeit eight of those men gave their lives protecting Adams and Hancock.

A week or two back, I stopped by a local gun shop. I could not believe how busy the place was for a Thursday morning. Every clerk was busy hopping between multiple customer looking at all sorts of pistol, revolvers and pistol grip shotguns. Some were trying to sell the store Glocks or chrome plated Saturday night specials… with little luck. There was even a sheriffs deputy picking up about a dozen rifles.

The customers were intense… these were not casual purchases. Yet, they were purchases protected by our Constitution, if not all levels of our government. They were purchases based concern for family and personal safety, as well as appreciation for fine machinery. The customers were of various races, ages and apparent income come levels.

I am not critical of their presence or their motives… I was there too! On one hand, if this pattern is repeated throughout the country, I am comforted that so many people are paying attention to the world around them and taking steps they believe is necessary to preserve their welfare. On the other hand, the fact that events around us are so frequent and intrusive on our lives that the people are waking up to the realities of what our government is doing to the average American.

In addition, Will Grigg states that another major component of the indictment that is worrisome is the charge that Hutaree is guilty of “seditious conspiracy.” As Grigg writes, “Whatever is eventually learned about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment against it could provide a template for ‘seditious conspiracy’ prosecutions involving practically any group that endorses the use of defensive force to protect citizens against government aggression.

“Indeed, the definition of ‘conspiracy’ used in the Hutaree indictment could make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public, thereby sharing James Madison’s commendably seditious admonition that the people preserve ‘the advantage of being armed’ in the event that insurrection against the central government proves necessary in order to preserve liberty.”

Let’s look a little closer at Federalist 46, written by Founding Father, author of the US Constitution, and America’s fourth President, James Madison. In dispelling the fears of colonists toward a standing federal army, Madison said in Federalist 46, “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

View this video, then view it again… and think about what is really going as leaders of the United States and Russia conspire against the American people. The US president is telling the Russian leader that they should be patient. He is telling him that after he is re-elected he would be more flexible in working with our traditional enemy and selling out our God-given rights and traditional allies.

This is something we need to consider, and many see this as just one more indication that Obama is not suited to sit in the oval office any more than he was suited to sit in the Senate. Those of us who care about the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens, as well as the safety of our friends who have stood with us over the years should be outraged at such betrayal. Many of us see the danger and are speaking up and doing what we can to see that the re-election he seeks is denied him by the American people.

[Adopted June 12, 1776 - Drafted by George Mason, this declaration of rights later became a model for other state constitutions and the Bill of Rights. It's time we get back to the ideas that got it all started.]

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

After failing in her attempt to become President of the United States, globalist Hillary Clinton has now set her sights on the World Bank. In some ways it fits her ambitions much better than the mere presidency of only one country. The reputed “smartest woman in the world” simply could not be constrained by the borders of a decaying country under the control of a Chicago thug.

Her ambitions, like her supposed abilities are legendary, and the World Bank presidency may be a position designed just for her. Where else could she plunder her own country, along with others, for money to redistribute to the poor and downtrodden in the world. She apparently has visions of being the present day Eleanor Roosevelt who, as William F. Buckley declared, “viewed the world as one vast slum project.”

The World Bank describes itself in this way…

We are not a bank in the ordinary sense but a unique partnership to reduce poverty and support development. We comprise two institutions managed by 187 member countries: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association(IDA). The IBRD aims to reduce poverty in middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries, while IDA focuses exclusively on the world’s poorest countries. These institutions are part of a larger body known as the World Bank Group.

Established in 1944, the World Bank is headquartered in Washington, D.C. We have more than 9,000 employees in more than 100 offices worldwide.

As we approach the celebration of Christ’s birth, I am reminded of the words of John Quincy Adams. On July 4, 1837, he spoke these words:

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?”

Adams was exactly right: America’s birth is directly linked to the birth of our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, founded upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within America’s earliest history.

[As he left public life, George Washington had serious concerns for the country he helped bring into being. He had surprising insights into the situations this new nation would face and (often ignored) advice on avoiding pitfalls that have destroyed other nations in the past. The language is difficult to comprehend at times, but we can learn from his wisdom or we can continue to ignore it at our peril.]

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

[As he left public life, George Washington had serious concerns for the country he helped bring into being. He had surprising insights into the situations this new nation would face and (often ignored) advice on avoiding pitfalls that have destroyed other nations in the past. The language is difficult to comprehend at times, but we can learn from his wisdom or we can continue to ignore it at our peril.]

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

Legislation has been introduced by Senators Chuck Shumer (D-NY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) that would grant visas to foreign citizens who will come into the country and buy at least half a million dollars in real estate. It has been added to their new immigration bill with the idea of helping our floundering housing market. We are told it is a great deal all the way around as buyers with cash (hopefully) would be brought into the market, homes would be sold, real estate agents would get paid, banks may be able to reduce their inventory of foreclosed houses and, best of all, we are told, it won’t cost us a cent.

This sounds like a deal that is too good to be true. And, when we look at it a little more closely, it really is too good to be true. This has been presented as a bi-partisan approach to the problem. This description brought to mind the late comedian George Carlin’s thoughts about such proposals, “Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.”

While all the benefits we are supposed to experience because of this bill are necessary and to be desired, we really have to consider what we will do to get them. One of the provisions is that the visas will not be work visas, so buyers will have to have an independent source of funds. We are told that this is the kind of people we want… they are the priority immigrants. They are to be desired if they will come into our country and spend their own money. It is certainly better than people sneaking across the borders and becoming wards of the state.

New York, NY – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reference to the United Nations as the “theater of the absurd” is an apt description of an organization that was designed to bring peace among nations. The UN has lost its legitimacy in light of recent events.

Rather than entertain a request for statehood of the Palestinian Authority (PA), presented Friday by Mahmoud Abbas, the UN should reject it outright. The PA’s request for statehood includes the Gaza strip, Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank), and the Golan Heights, but the PA does not control the West Bank or the Golan Heights, where hundreds of thousands of Israelis live and where Israel provides security. How can the UN entertain a request for statehood on land not controlled by the entity making the application?

Abbas and the PA sanction terrorism against Jews and refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, Abbas denies the Holocaust. Abbas, using his other name, Abu Mazen, studied at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, where he earned a doctorate degree and wrote a dissertation entitled, “The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement,” in which he attempted to prove that the Nazi Holocaust of Jews never occurred. As Abbas denies the Holocaust of the Jews, refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and sponsors terrorism against innocent Jews, he is in the same company as Hitler or other leaders of genocide. Read more of this article »

[Editors note: Earlier this week we posted an article that referenced Federalist 2, written by John Jay. I thought it would be well to include the full article as there is much to learn from Jay's valuation of unity.]

To the People of the State of New York:

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

When United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his plan “to fundamentally transform the global economy — based on low-carbon, clean energy resources,” few realized he was calling for a new global tax to be designed without public scrutiny, but that is exactly what he meant. To thwart it, the UN’s flawed process and its tax design scheme must be exposed.

The UN’s one nation, one vote system has been used since its founding to render the U.S. impotent, regardless of the fact that we are its major financial donor. It is credulous to think that UN reforms could fix its flawed process. Banning the press and global tax opponents from its July 13-14 tax design meeting in Tokyo, Japan, for example, is anathema to a democratic process, but the UN is not a democracy. Rather, its unelected bureaucrats use a “collaborative decision-making process” to reach “consensus” with no debate or expressed opposition. The UN calls it “global governance” and Ban Ki-moon describes how it works: “While we are all in the same boat, not all have a say in how to steer it.”

The tax saga began in earnest last December in Cancun, Mexico when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992, created a Transitional Committee charged with designing a new Green Climate Fund. The Committee is to design the Fund to amass a minimum of $100 billion a year, which is to be approved at the next major meeting of the UNFCCC in Durban, South Africa this December. Read more of this article »

As with Romans chapter 13, Jesus’ instructions recorded in Matthew 22:21, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,” are likewise much misinterpreted. The same people who love to quote Romans 13 to justify their cowardice in the face of oppressive government also use Jesus’ words in Matthew 22 to do the same thing.

Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 22 puts two misconceptions to rest: 1) the fallacious philosophy that a man can be a law unto himself and is, therefore, not subject to any civil government or authority, and, 2) the draconian doctrine that government (Caesar) is, itself, above the law and can force God’s people to submit to anything it so desires. In one brilliant statement, the Lord Jesus forever expunges both errors.

Obviously, if men were perfectly sinless, there would be no need for human government; but, since every man has tasted of Adam’s fallen nature, God instituted human government for the overall peace and safety of civil people. No man is a law unto himself–including people in government! This is especially true in the United States, because America has no Caesar! America’s founders clearly understood this principle. Thomas Jefferson reflected this understanding when he said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Read more of this article »

Barack Obama’s election to the highest Office in our Country is undeniably historic; he will forever be known as the first black man elected President of the United States. And we’re the generation that finally surpassed this racial threshold signifying how far we’ve come as a Nation. His election reflects the fulfillment of what Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed about so many years ago, where all men would be judged only by the content of their character and no longer by the color of their skin… as it should be.

Obama’s election is also historic for what he can uniquely do in the job, as no other President before him. Having won the highest platform of power and influence in the land, he could bring closure to the wounds of racism in America, and take us to the next level of rising above the sins of the past.

I grieved the night Obama won the Presidency, for two reasons, the second dovetailing the first, and neither had anything to do with objecting to a black man in the White House; on the contrary. I 100% do not agree with his ideology, his policies, or his desire to “fundamentally transform America.” I am not disappointed or surprised by his Presidency; it’s exactly what I expected and feared, and therefore why I grieved – I knew what was to come and didn’t want to go there. Now that we’re here in the thick of it, I feel all I never wanted to feel. I became part of the TEA Party to express that. The dovetail is I felt robbed of the joy of fully celebrating the first black president because I couldn’t celebrate Obama being the president. A black president is something I had longed and prayed for America and always believed I would see in my lifetime, just not someone as far left as Obama. Read more of this article »

“Backfire”; was the prophetic word for 2011 that I believe that the Lord revealed to me in late December, 2010.

The word “backfire” often describes a scenario where the opposite of the desired effect happens to our enemies. It is when their plans for our demise blows right up in their face(s) without us having to do anything.

This prophetic “word” will encourage anyone that has ever been used, betrayed, or rejected by a jealous or opportunistic person.

It is important for us to stay focused on G-d’s purpose for our lives when enemies rise up against us in these “end times”. We must stay focused and be strengthened by His Word:

The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:1-3 NIV)

This it was from the very beginning. Israel was created to be a unique nation in the world, with a special relation with God. Later we see:

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May those who love you be secure. May there be peace within your walls and security within your citadels.” For the sake of my brothers and friends, I will say, “Peace be within you.” For the sake of the house of the Lord our God, I will seek your prosperity. (Psalm 122:6-9 NIV)

These passages make it pretty plain that our Creator is looking out for the nation of Israel and expects those who follow him to do the same. This is true even though the modern country is a relatively new addition to the brotherhood of nations, but even it’s brief history is full of miraculous appointments and interventions. Read more of this article »

Invitation

If you like the copyrighted content of Political Christian and would like to repost, republish or email the material, permission is granted for any article attributed to Larry Miller provided 1) there is a link back to this site and 2) there is no subscription fee and no paid advertising.

For other circumstances and other contributors, please contact larry@politicachristian.org or follow links that may be provided.